Connecticut Commuter Council minutes for January now online

Connecticut Commuter Counsil minutes for January now online
http://www.trainweb.org/ct/minutes0105.htm

Who's this Richard Stowe from New Canaan and why is he pushing for the New Haven line to switch to third rail? Obviously I think thats a pretty crazy thing to be bringing up and the legislature should be smarter then to consider anything like that when there are more serious issues to deal with. Otherwise nothing really earth shattering in the minutes. The taxi system at the Stamford station does seem to been working fine, and traffic on that entire side of the station(NH bound side) seems to be moving much smoother then it ever did before. As long as the $2 tokens never return everyone should be happy.

Why third rail all the way to NH? That would be too costly and plus Amtrak.

NJD8598 wrote:Who's this Richard Stowe from New Canaan and why is he pushing for the New Haven line to switch to third rail? Obviously I think thats a pretty crazy thing to be bringing up and the legislature should be smarter then to consider anything like that when there are more serious issues to deal with. Otherwise nothing really earth shattering in the minutes. The taxi system at the Stamford station does seem to been working fine, and traffic on that entire side of the station(NH bound side) seems to be moving much smoother then it ever did before. As long as the $2 tokens never return everyone should be happy.

He's either with or is the Railroad Transportation Excellence Coalition. You can find them at http://www.railtec.org/. He also features some online petitions. I don't see a bio section so I don't know what his bona fides are, but he seems to be a strong rail advocate involved in local politics.

As for 3rd rail to New Canaan, I'm with you in wondering what that's going to solve. From his website I gather that Mr. Stowe feels 3rd rail is better than catenary wire as a power source for trains. To me, I think catenary replacement with 3rd rail is a low priority item on Metro-North's agenda, and equates to fixing something that's not broken just because it may be 'more gooder'.

I don't think anyone is going to take calls for converting the NH Line to 3rd rail seriously. That's like switching LIRR 3rd rail to MN 3rd rail. Just not practical. Major changes in infrastructure are rarely worth the effort, time, and most importantly $$$.

For switching to third rail, it would allow CDOT to purchase the same cars as MNRR or LIRR. They would no longer have to design and build cars capable of running off of the catenary and third rail. That or he thinks CDOT wouldn't have to buy anything, and use the equipment MNRR already has.
PS I thought that third rail was outlawed by Connecticut in the early 1900s.

Unprotected third rail is illegal in CT. That's 3rd rail that's easily walked/stumbled upon. The law was passed when the railroads used an electrified rail between the 2 running rails; livestock would walk on it and electrocute, hence the law. Third rail of the type MN uses would be allowed.

I see your point regarding 3rd rail allowing a universal MN MU vs. building a brand new NH line specific railcar, but I think the construction of it would surpass the cost of the new fleet. Plus, how would you handle Amtrak traffic? Or would we have both 3rd rail and catenary supply?

Still unwise:

1. Can't be done without realigning all tracks and stations (MAJOR pain, expense, and wait).

2. Requires substations every few miles.

3. Would take too long.

4. Much more expensive than ordering EMUs than can run on both power systems.

Again, as I said, there is little sense in making major changes to existing infrastructure. It is better to order equipment that is compatible with that infrastructure.

All the reasons here are exactly why I think this will just blow over and be forgotten, for now at least. The legislature knows what they need to do, and thats finding a way to purchase new railcars ASAP.

Switch to third rail?

Simple application of ohm's law shows you why third rail sucks.

This is an interesting topic that I have thought of previously.
There would of course be advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages would be simpler equipment, no more changeover
problems and probably better relaibility.
The disadvantages, probably the biggest one would be the expense of
putting in third rail and building and equipping substations. The power
supply is already there.
I do not think it would take a major redesign of either stations or bridges
as there could be short gaps in the third rail if necessary for crossover
switches or drawbridge sections. I do not think it would be fair to take it
for granted that there would be more equipment available as Metro-North
needs the M-1's etc for the Harlem and Hudson operations. The overhead
wires would have to be continued to be maintained for Amtrak operations
as it would not be practical for Amtrak to try to convert. With the married
pairs in use, one shoe touching the third rail provides power for both cars
of that par so I do not see gaps being a major problem.
Would there be an improvement in the operation, there could be but not
necessarily would be. Both require maintenance and both are affected by
weather conditions. The third rail would be more affected by snow but the
overhead could be more affected by extreme heat or cold. With a
disruption, third rail problems would only affect one track out of three or
four as the case may be where-as a wire problem could affect all of the
main tracks. One thing that contributes to wire problems on the New
Haven Line in my opinion is the extreme heavy duty construction of the
pantograph on the M-2's etc, in the New Haven Railroad days and even
later on as long as the 4400's were running, a pantograph problem
generally would not do anywhere near the damage that they suffer today
when a pantograph acts up. On the 4400's, the pantograph was designed
to break up before such major wire damage occured that would affect
most if not all of the main line tracks. A re-design of the pantographs on
the M-cars would help this situation somewhat.
With the wires already in place, probably the bottom line would be to leave
things as they presently are.
Noel Weaver

MNRR is spending @ 450 million to upgrade the wire. I would love to see how you could justify putting 3rd rail down now. If he is from New Canaan he must be familiar with trees falling on the overhead wire. This gives the train a chance if a tree comes down your not going to be moving without power. With 3rd rail I imagine you could take power up to a downed tree and derail. Another thing is how is Amtrak going to move on the line without the overhead wire. There is no way to justify maintaining 2 forms of power.

Swedish Meatball wrote:MNRR is spending @ 450 million to upgrade the wire. I would love to see how you could justify putting 3rd rail down now. If he is from New Canaan he must be familiar with trees falling on the overhead wire. This gives the train a chance if a tree comes down your not going to be moving without power. With 3rd rail I imagine you could take power up to a downed tree and derail. Another thing is how is Amtrak going to move on the line without the overhead wire. There is no way to justify maintaining 2 forms of power.

I agree that it would be ridiculous to switch, but IF they did, once the contrack with Amtrak runs out, can't CDOT just tell them they are screwed?

Once again, I think they should leave the wire in place! I am just asking a legal question.

CDOT would not do this in fear of losing Federal money from Amtrak to upgrade. Interlockings CP 235, CP 217-216, and the new High Speed interlocking in Southport (CP 24? or 25?) are all funded by Amtrak. The whole premis of 3rd rail on the New Haven is absurd.

Maybe with the M-8, instead of buing the cute looking single arm pans the existing stuff has, they should look at the Stennman types NJT uses. I know as a fact (because I've talked to one of their top electric guys about this) that NJT selected them specifically for their tendancy to break up in dewirements, whereas the GE/Faviley types don't, and cause a big mess. The guy said this is a mostly inherint flaw in the design, and that all single arm types share it to some degree. The types that NJT uses on their MUs break up nice and cleanly, and do less damage to the wires...

With the lack of roof resistors on the (unpowered) M-8 center cars, there's plenty of room for one...